from the fact the CAM (as much as general statements can be made about such a loose category) is anti-science

]]>By: Steven Novellahttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alternative-medicines-attack-on-science/#comment-41960
Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:24:34 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4408#comment-41960FYI – you might want to move this discussion to my post for today.
]]>By: ccbowershttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alternative-medicines-attack-on-science/#comment-41959
Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:23:39 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4408#comment-41959“If we are to help those that suffer we must first agree on the cause.”

Completely untrue.

]]>By: superdavehttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alternative-medicines-attack-on-science/#comment-41958
Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:20:23 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4408#comment-41958I should add that I am not implying that Dr. Novella is always right, or that his logic should be unquestioned. But an extraordinary claim like psychiatric medicine being entirely crap requires extraordinary proof and it makes more sense to go with the status quo in the absence of this proof.
]]>By: superdavehttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alternative-medicines-attack-on-science/#comment-41957
Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:17:41 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4408#comment-41957I’m a little late to this party but Dirk, let’s use Occam’s razor.
If you agree with Dr. Novella that homeopathy is crap then you agree he has at least some skill in interpreting science and evidence to come to a conclusion about a treatment. But you claim he fails to use those skills correctly when evaluating one particular branch of medicine. Why would he do this? How could he? If we agree that Dr. Novella knows how to apply his knowledge to interpreting efficacy of medicines, isn’t it a simpler possibility that he is likewise correctly applying his knowledge to the case of psychiatric medicine and you are simply mistaken? Doesn’t this more neatly solve the discrepancy than the supposition that Dr. Novella is right about everything but this?
]]>By: daedalus2uhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alternative-medicines-attack-on-science/#comment-41956
Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:40:17 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4408#comment-41956You are confusing how science works with how humans work. Humans have a difficult time being scientists. The default mode in human thinking isn’t to “think”, it is to feel, and to use cognition to justify those feelings.

As Box said, “all models are wrong, some are useful”. Yes, the “disease model” of neuropsychiatric disorders is wrong, as is every other model of every other thing. Is a disease model of neuropsychiatric disorders useful? That is not a scientific question. Useful for what? Useful for suppressing political dissidents? Useful for preventing suicide? Useful for helping people to live happier and more productive lives?

There was a recent post about ECT. No one suggested that MDD is caused by a deficiency of ECT. I think that MDD is a “feature”, the normal and necessary aversive state between “at rest” and the euphoria of near death metabolic stress. It is not a “disease” per se, but the metabolic state that leads to MDD at rest is an adverse metabolic state and that metabolic state can be corrected which resolves MDD. This is difficult to do.

I have only read the wikipedia page on Ssasz, but if he allies himself with Scientologists, he is no scientist. If his agenda is not to understand neuropsychiatric disorders, then what is it? Whatever his agenda is, if it is compatible with Scientology, then it is not compatible with being scientific.

‘If you want people to accept the idea that astrology is insufficiently-scientific, you need to provide a system with better explanatory and treatment power that is more scientific. That is how science works.’

I changed your quote for emphasis. Others with a greater intellect than I have already done this. Thomas Szasz, Erving Goffman, Richard P Bentall, Allen Francis, Karl Popper, and even Richard P Feynman etc etc have already ridiculed the unscientific nature of psychiatry. I will call upon Ocamm’s razor. To believe that MDD or even ADHD is the result of a ‘disease’ of the ‘mind’ that can be ‘cured’ by a hefty dose of ECT is preposterous. It is only when this unscientific nonsense is abandoned that some true progress may be made.

]]>By: daedalus2uhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alternative-medicines-attack-on-science/#comment-41948
Thu, 19 Apr 2012 02:04:21 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4408#comment-41948If you want people to accept the idea that psychiatry is insufficiently-scientific, you need to provide a system with better explanatory and treatment power that is more scientific. That is how science works.
]]>By: Dirk Steelehttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alternative-medicines-attack-on-science/#comment-41946
Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:03:46 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4408#comment-41946I am still listening.
]]>